4 girls dragged kicking/screaming onto aircraft after Australian judge rules they return to father

Originally posted by detachedindividual
This is a messed up situation, but based on all of that, I would be ruling that the kids stay with their mother. I don't care if you think the kids
are too young to decide, at 9 an up I don't believe they are too young. They can be asked, and they can give an answer. They obviously wanted to stay
with their mother, and IMO that should be the end of the story.

It is messed up, but it was the mother who messed it up.

The father has actually been gracious enough to agree to not lay criminal charges, if the mother returns to Italy to contest child custody

The mother will have an opportunity to contest custody through an Italian court. All of the girls were born in Italy, hold Italian passports and had
apparently lived there their whole life in Italy until the mother took them on holiday to Australia, with the father's permission, and then refused to
return them.

I do not disagree with what you say. The problem being that as soon as the mother decided to not return the children it becomes kidnap. And she then
severely impairs her chances at any subsequent hearings to decide on the childrens future - she has demonstrated to the courts criminal
irresponsibility.

Therefore, yes, it is a simple enough case as to say the mother has caused this. She may have believed she was in the right (and in some
circumstances, she may have been. We do not know their lives so cannot say either way) but the actions she has undertaken have placed her firmly in
the wrong and seriously damaged any future chance she has of gaining custody. She has, in effect, made things far worse for her children.

They should have been left with their mum if that's where they want to be, in my opinion. Being grabbed by a bunch of strangers and dragged
kicking and screaming onto a flight is not something they will forget in a hurry either. That's assault. The law is an ass sometimes, this is
one of those times.

Originally posted by wigit
They should have been left with their mum if that's where they want to be, in my opinion.

What the girls want is only one factor taken into consideration in a family court when determining custody.

It should also be borne in mind that the judge involved in sending the children back to their father has stated that the girls have been significantly
influenced by the mother and others, while the great grandmother has displayed "extremely inappropriate and bizarre" views

In a lengthy legal analysis, Justice Forrest rejected all three grounds argued by the mother for her daughters to remain in Australia.

Her arguments that it was "impractical" to send them back, that there were "exceptional circumstances" for them to stay, and it had been "12
months" since the return order was made were all rejected.

But Justice Forrest found the girls had been significantly influenced by the mother and those around her, including "extremely inappropriate and
bizarre" views of their maternal great grandmother.

He told the hearing that when Queensland police found them in hiding, the great grandmother declared in front of them, "How exciting. Who is going to
play you in the movie? They will have to find a good little dark-headed actress to play you".

As I said, time will tell. Lets see how this plays out in Italy with media scrutiny behind it - methinks we are going to find out a few things about
the father that he would wish dearly to be kept secret.

By the way - did you see the ABC interview with the father's Australian lawyer? He has got to be the dodgiest looking bloke I have seen in a LONG
time. I half expected him to get his cousins and go start a street race in his WRX.

As I said, time will tell. Lets see how this plays out in Italy with media scrutiny behind it - methinks we are going to find out a few things about
the father that he would wish dearly to be kept secret.

Actually, the judge in the case has stated that she has heard no evidence that supported allegations that he was abusive.

Originally posted by Kryties
By the way - did you see the ABC interview with the father's Australian lawyer? He has got to be the dodgiest looking bloke I have seen in a LONG
time. I half expected him to get his cousins and go start a street race in his in his WRX.

It's amazing the sexists in this thread willing to stand up for a person who kidnaps children.

If it was a male everyone would be wailing on him in a heart beat, but because it's a female they give her the benefit of the doubt.

Actions speak louder than words, and it's clear the father is the better parent. With custody awarded to him, there would have been no child support
to be paid etc. He could have easily walked away and forgot about the kids. But instead decided to fight for them.

Actually, the judge in the case has stated that she has heard no evidence that supported allegations that he was abusive.

All that tells me is that he could be an expert in hiding it.

I didn't. Perhaps I can catch it on YouTube?

Couldn't find it sorry, even checked iview but all they have is the link to the live stream of ABC24. They have been replaying the interview
regularly for a few hours now, if you turn on ABC24 (or go to www.abc.net.au... and watch the ABC24 live stream) it will come back on soon
methinks.

I totally disagree with you. If there is a past of family violence then the children should not be forced to return to the offending parent.

If this case was heard in NZ, the violent parent would loose due to clauses in their family court law; we all know the Australian judicial system is
pretty much left behind and is in dire need of a major overhaul.

Originally posted by SilentNoise
It's amazing the sexists in this thread willing to stand up for a person who kidnaps children.

If it was a male everyone would be wailing on him in a heart beat, but because it's a female they give her the benefit of the doubt.

Actions speak louder than words, and it's clear the father is the better parent. With custody awarded to him, there would have been no child support
to be paid etc. He could have easily walked away and forgot about the kids. But instead decided to fight for them.

What a load of nonsense. I have a belief that there is more than meets the eye in this case based on what I have seen and heard about the case - this
has NOTHING to do with who is male and who is female......how completely ridiculous.

If (and I stress thats a big IF) it turns out that the father really is a monster and the wife was fleeing him with the kids for their safety - I hope
to see all the people sticking up for the father in this thread take off their shoes, stick them in their mouths, chomp down hard, take a picture of
it and post it to ATS.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I totally disagree with you. If there is a past of family violence then the children should not be forced to return to the offending parent.

If this case was heard in NZ, the violent parent would loose due to clauses in their family court law; we all know the Australian judicial system is
pretty much left behind and is in dire need of a major overhaul.

But there is no evidence of domestic violence. Only allegations made by the mother in the Australian court which have not been proven.

The Australian judge stated that she had heard no evidence that supported the allegations that he was abusive.

I find it a little worrying that people are so quick to believe allegations of abuse, despite the judge in the case pouring cold water on those
accusations.

I can only presume it is because the accused is a man and the accuser a women.

Yes, and in the Australian Family Court system children who are victims of family violence and even child molestation are still given access to the
offending parent because it's the word of a child v an adult. A child barely if ever gets a say in Australia, but then neither do the elderly
victims who are constantly abused in nursing homes.

What to expect when we have a Govt in power who pays up $50K to a victim of sexual harrassment to shut them up!

The mother has not been able to resent any evidence that confirms her allegations of abuse. It would be reasonable to assume that she is
telling lies.

If the evidence were in Italy and she feared for her safety in returning to get it then it would be reasonable to assume she was incapable of
providing evidence for other reasons than just that she didn't have any.

I am puzzled why you are so incident that the man is violent when the judge in the case has stated that she has seen any evidence to support
the mother's allegations that he is abusive.

See above.

Would you be so insistent if it was a man making an accusation that a women was abusive?

Man, woman - doesn't matter. I have pointed this out 3 times already and am starting to get a little annoyed that you seem to be completely ignoring
that fact. Are you ignoring this deliberately? Or are you just incapable of reading properly?

This could go around in circles all night - Ive also said several times that we shall have to wait and see the outcome of the case in Italy.

But, by all means, ignore all this and try to claim I am being sexist again - kgo.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.